[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: more physics (short)

At 9:04 PM 6/4/96, Timothy van der Linden wrote:
>>>>No the numbers were not based on an engineering output.  That was supposed
>>>>to be the direct output from the reactions.  Could be I misread something
>>>>and the 14E6 number was for something else (though I can't see what).
>>>I don't know, but I've been discussing this with Rex lately and he thinks
>>>that the efficiency of a DIRECT fusion engine may be low. With direct I mean
>>>that one doesn't convert the kinetic energy of the reaction products to
>>Why?  The velocities seem to be similar to the 'optimum' velocities in your
>>table.  I thought you figured that by the time you converted the particals
>>momentum to elec, and then convert that elec back to the exaust velocity of
>>a mass it would all come out even?  (Give or take a lot of tonage of power
>>Please CC me if you have anything.
>It has to do with the fact that one needs to build up pressure in the engine
>so that all reaction products get a more or less even velocity.
>Then the particles can be directed to a "hole" (the outlet) in the engine.
>It is the question if the pressure can be build up, since a lot of the
>energy will be radiated away, we may be talking about million degrees here.
>Maybe particles can be contained but black body radiation is hard to keep in.
>This way there will probably be to much losses, therefore it may be best to
>capture that heat rightaway and turn it into electricity.

I don't follow why the presure or hole?  I was figuring on the reactor
being in a parabolic charged bowel that would reflect the particals in the
general direction.  (About a 20 degree cone should be good.)  Otherwise
trying to contain that much power would be hard and HOT.



Kelly Starks                       Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)